Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New system build. Goal: windows vista exp index of 5.9

Last response: in Systems
Share
March 2, 2007 12:10:36 PM

I'm in the market to upgrade my pc. I want the 680i chipset, 6600 core2duo, a nvidia 8800gts, 2 gigs of ddr 4-4-4-12 timing, and a 3g sata drive. does anyone have this configuration with vista? I need to know if you can acheve a 5.9 index with this and if not, what i would need to add to get it. Please dont respond with why you think the index doesnt matter. It matters to me as a person who would find it annoying to see anythign less.. most of you can understand :) 
March 2, 2007 12:30:50 PM

I don't have that exact setup, but I have some similar components, and equivalent (or better) with overclocking. I have also seen other scores with similar components.

Short answer to your question: No.

Longer answer: You will get 5.9 in certain areas of the scoring, but definitely not all. And your overall score is indicative and reflective of your lowest score....the "weakest link" in your system. So unless ALL of your parts are very high end, you won't score an overall 5.9. Your graphics card will, your memory might, your CPU will get close-ish, so hard drive won't for sure.

The specs you mention are better than the vast majority of systems out there, and will score you just fine for Vista, but definitely not a 5.9 overall. To do that you'll need to highly overclock your CPU, get Raptors in RAID 0, and 8800GTX, and so forth. Why spend so much money for a few percentage points in Vista, which has no bearing on real world applications? It's a synthetic scoring system for newbies that can point to a game and say, "My system can handle it". If you have THAT much money to burn, I'll give you my PayPal and you can send some extra my way ;) 

Build what you need, not what bogus score to achieve.
March 2, 2007 12:45:49 PM

well, i would assume the vga card will give me a 5.9. my 6800gt gets a 5.9 right now. the raptor drive i looked at was not faster then the sata 300 drives ive seen for hundreads less. They offer faster transfer speed, seek time and come in much larger sizes for a lot less. I may eventually do a raid setup but dont have the money to buy all the drives. right now i have a score of 4.5 with my current setup. i have 1 gig of pc3200, a 7200 rpm seagate sata drive, a p4 2.8 with ht a 6800gt and my score is good. I would think a computer practicly double mine ( the one i listed above) would have to get me a 5.9. Im not a (n00b) lol I've been doing this for 15 years.. I Just have this problem where if i see something like a low score it would drive me crazy. If im getting a low score its from a piece of hardware.. i want a better piece to fix the score.

note: the raptor drive i saw had 8 meg buffer, 10k rpm and half the transfer speed as a sata300. Are there better raptor drives?
Related resources
March 2, 2007 12:51:56 PM

If your 6800gt gives you a 5.9, then something is broke in their rating system.

There is no way a Video card that does not support DirectX10 can be considered as being able to provide the best possible experience.

Now, we all know that DirectX10 is still really pie in the sky today since no games use it and the few cards that support it have major driver issues.

If nothing else, this reveals how silly the rating system is.
March 2, 2007 1:10:14 PM

Quote:
I'm in the market to upgrade my pc. I want the 680i chipset, 6600 core2duo, a nvidia 8800gts, 2 gigs of ddr 4-4-4-12 timing, and a 3g sata drive. does anyone have this configuration with vista? I need to know if you can acheve a 5.9 index with this and if not, what i would need to add to get it. Please dont respond with why you think the index doesnt matter. It matters to me as a person who would find it annoying to see anythign less.. most of you can understand :) 


With a DX10 compatible gpu and the specs listed, I'm sure it will run Vista just fine.

What sickens me though is that we are now forced to using a proprietary M$ bull$hit-o-meter to determine if our machines are "good" enough to run a bloated, over priced operating system. What a crock of $hit!

It's for reasons like this that I keep adding more functionality and projects to my Ubuntu install. And, just another reason to bootleg M$ products, not that I condone that kind of thing. :roll: :lol: 
March 2, 2007 1:13:39 PM

You dont need a direct x 10 card to run windows. The vista xp index is designed for the "windows experience" not the game exp. I am willing to bet that th geforce 4 5900 would give you a score of 5.9. These cards are over kill for running areo. BTW.. what games are dx 10 anyway right now
March 2, 2007 1:29:43 PM

Spend more money, feeeeed the machine! I bet once you have spent 3 grand building the killer rig to get the 5.9 score MS will announce that there was a bug in the rating system and issue the 'you fools patch' promptly.

That, or the onboard sound solution you skimped on is holding you at 5.8 :lol: 

M
March 2, 2007 1:31:57 PM

I found a page that explains the Vista score and here is the most useful info...

Computing each sub-score

Each sub score in the index was created to measure the performance of a critical piece of hardware. The scores are calculated by measuring one or more relevant performance attributes, and then converting the values (normalizing) to a score between 1.0 and 5.9.

In this section you can read what is tested for each sub-score.

The CPU Score

The CPU score was created to measure the processor performance when tasked with common Windows usage activities. The processor is assessed on the following items:

1. Compression and decompression using the LZW compression algorithm.

2. Compression and decompression using the Windows Vista compression algorithm used for hibernation files, ReadyBoost and other features.

3. Encryption and decryption assessment

4. Computing hashes

5. Encoding of video

The results are normalized and weight averaged in order to arrive at the final CPU sub‑score.
The Memory Score

The memory score measures the bandwidth of moving data into and out of memory in mega bytes per second. The higher the bandwidth, the better the memory.

Not having enough memory is a limiting factor on performance. As a result, the amount of memory in the system constrains the score value. The amount of system memory is determined by the overall system memory minus any memory reserved for graphics (if any).

The amount of memory limits are:

Amount of memory


Highest possible score

Less than 256 MB


1.0

Less than 500 MB


2.0

512 MB or less


2.9

Less than 704 MB


3.5

Less than 960 MB


3.9

Less than 1.5 GB


4.5
The Graphics Score

This score is intended to reflect how a system will run Aero (desktop composition) and playback Windows Media Video. It measures video memory bandwidth (in mega bytes per second) and converts it to a score between 1.0 and 5.9.

If the system does not support DirectX 9 (DX9) graphics, than the system receives a graphics score of 1.0 regardless of driver type. If the system supports DX9, but does not have a WDDM Driver (Windows Vista Display Driver Model) than the system can receive a graphics score of 1.9 at the most.
The Gaming Score

The gaming score measures the frames per second the graphics card can handle for various textures.

Additional notes:

· If the graphics card does not support D3D 9 then it receives a Gaming score of 1.0.

· If D3D 9 is supported, the card is DX9 capable and has a WDDM driver, it will score at least 2.0.

· If the score is greater than or equal to 5.0 and the graphics sub-system does not support Pixel Shader 3.0 then the score is limited to 4.9
The Disk Score

The disk score measures disk bandwidth (in mega bytes per second). The conversion to an index number is set up in a way that all modern disks will score at least 2.0.

The rest is here...

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/pages/45...
March 2, 2007 1:33:21 PM

Quote:
I'm in the market to upgrade my pc. I want the 680i chipset, 6600 core2duo, a nvidia 8800gts, 2 gigs of ddr 4-4-4-12 timing, and a 3g sata drive. does anyone have this configuration with vista? I need to know if you can acheve a 5.9 index with this and if not, what i would need to add to get it. Please dont respond with why you think the index doesnt matter. It matters to me as a person who would find it annoying to see anythign less.. most of you can understand :) 


With a DX10 compatible gpu and the specs listed, I'm sure it will run Vista just fine.

What sickens me though is that we are now forced to using a proprietary M$ bull$hit-o-meter to determine if our machines are "good" enough to run a bloated, over priced operating system. What a crock of $hit!

It's for reasons like this that I keep adding more functionality and projects to my Ubuntu install. And, just another reason to bootleg M$ products, not that I condone that kind of thing. :roll: :lol: 


I can actually run vista fine on my machine now my score is a 4.9 and i have no problems at all.. its just I want a new computer and if i get one might as well be the best.


Well i dont want to argue the benifits f linux over windows right now.. thats a looong and tired discussion. But I do actually like this new rating system. It provides every day users a standard and will help all of us pc repair people to explain why there computer is horrible... but to the point.. id like someone who has this config to let us know if it gets to 5.9 or not.
March 2, 2007 1:40:31 PM

I bet no one gets 5.9
March 2, 2007 1:42:28 PM

So, a month ago, i was in the enviable possition of being a student, and just selling my house that i have had for the past 5 years. Thinking what i could do with the hard earned money, i banked most of it, but decided to build a no limits machine for gaming, and uni (IT Student!) So here it is:

CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad QX6600 @3GHz

Motherboard: EVGA nForce 680i

RAM: Corsair DDR2 XMS2 Dominator PC2-9136C5 (4x 1Gb)

Graphics: EVGA 8800GTX 786Mb Superclocked

Sound: Onboard RealTek HD

Hard Drive: 2x WD 74Gb Raptor, 2x Seagate Barracuda 200Gb

Power Supply: OCZ 850W

Not all the specs, but as you can see, quite a machine, now to the performance:

Processor - 5.9
Memory - 5.7
Graphics - 5.9
Gaming Graphics - 5.9
Primary H.D. 5.9

Total 5.7.

So even getting a full 5.9 isn't that easy...
March 2, 2007 1:43:51 PM

Quote:
well, i would assume the vga card will give me a 5.9. my 6800gt gets a 5.9 right now. the raptor drive i looked at was not faster then the sata 300 drives ive seen for hundreads less. They offer faster transfer speed, seek time and come in much larger sizes for a lot less. I may eventually do a raid setup but dont have the money to buy all the drives. right now i have a score of 4.5 with my current setup. i have 1 gig of pc3200, a 7200 rpm seagate sata drive, a p4 2.8 with ht a 6800gt and my score is good. I would think a computer practicly double mine ( the one i listed above) would have to get me a 5.9. Im not a (n00b) lol I've been doing this for 15 years.. I Just have this problem where if i see something like a low score it would drive me crazy. If im getting a low score its from a piece of hardware.. i want a better piece to fix the score.

note: the raptor drive i saw had 8 meg buffer, 10k rpm and half the transfer speed as a sata300. Are there better raptor drives?


I seriously hope you're not saying raptors are slower than standard SATA Drives?
March 2, 2007 1:44:42 PM

in fact, if ANYONE can get a score of 5.9 I will buy them a drink.

Surely thats an incentive to spend loads of cash and get the spouse angry?

M
March 2, 2007 1:55:47 PM

Quote:
well, i would assume the vga card will give me a 5.9. my 6800gt gets a 5.9 right now. the raptor drive i looked at was not faster then the sata 300 drives ive seen for hundreads less. They offer faster transfer speed, seek time and come in much larger sizes for a lot less. I may eventually do a raid setup but dont have the money to buy all the drives. right now i have a score of 4.5 with my current setup. i have 1 gig of pc3200, a 7200 rpm seagate sata drive, a p4 2.8 with ht a 6800gt and my score is good. I would think a computer practicly double mine ( the one i listed above) would have to get me a 5.9. Im not a (n00b) lol I've been doing this for 15 years.. I Just have this problem where if i see something like a low score it would drive me crazy. If im getting a low score its from a piece of hardware.. i want a better piece to fix the score.

note: the raptor drive i saw had 8 meg buffer, 10k rpm and half the transfer speed as a sata300. Are there better raptor drives?


I seriously hope you're not saying raptors are slower than standard SATA Drives?


Ok, well.. I dont have time to look it up but if you go to newegg and compare a sata-300 drive with a raptor the proff is in the pudding, faster transfer, faster seek, better handling of temp, and its quiter at a better price. Please if im wrong let me know and tell me what drive is faster.. i know the raptor is 10k rpm.. but that doesnt matter if the transfer speed is slow.. its like... hurry up and wait.
March 2, 2007 1:58:37 PM

Quote:
IF you really have a plethora of money laying around, get a few (4+) UW-SCSI 15K rpm HDs, a great SCSI card, with 128Mb or 256MB of built-in cache and you're all set to get a 5.9 on disk performance.


Keep in mind that the score calculation is bound to be changed as machines improve. It wouldn't make any sense if, 4 years from now, most machines be able to easily score 5.9 with the then existing hardware (4 Gb RAM of DDR3, 8-16 cores, etc). So MS might as well adapt the normalization method in order to prevent both a 8 core and a 2-core processor to score the same result.


I am willing to bet that a top of the line machine at 5.9 rating would get a rating jump once they make a higher score.. Its just that the top right now is 5.9.. what if you had a core 2 quad and 4 sli card running 8 gigs etc etc... do you really think that once the ratings get bumped its going to stop at 5.9?
March 2, 2007 2:00:00 PM

Quote:
well, i would assume the vga card will give me a 5.9. my 6800gt gets a 5.9 right now. the raptor drive i looked at was not faster then the sata 300 drives ive seen for hundreads less. They offer faster transfer speed, seek time and come in much larger sizes for a lot less. I may eventually do a raid setup but dont have the money to buy all the drives. right now i have a score of 4.5 with my current setup. i have 1 gig of pc3200, a 7200 rpm seagate sata drive, a p4 2.8 with ht a 6800gt and my score is good. I would think a computer practicly double mine ( the one i listed above) would have to get me a 5.9. Im not a (n00b) lol I've been doing this for 15 years.. I Just have this problem where if i see something like a low score it would drive me crazy. If im getting a low score its from a piece of hardware.. i want a better piece to fix the score.

note: the raptor drive i saw had 8 meg buffer, 10k rpm and half the transfer speed as a sata300. Are there better raptor drives?


I seriously hope you're not saying raptors are slower than standard SATA Drives?


Ok, well.. I dont have time to look it up but if you go to newegg and compare a sata-300 drive with a raptor the proff is in the pudding, faster transfer, faster seek, better handling of temp, and its quiter at a better price. Please if im wrong let me know and tell me what drive is faster.. i know the raptor is 10k rpm.. but that doesnt matter if the transfer speed is slow.. its like... hurry up and wait.

What?

Interface speed and transfer speed are two different things..
Raptors are much faster at seeking and transfers. I personally wouldn't but them, but they are for sure faster.

Please backup your statements!!
March 2, 2007 2:00:34 PM

Quote:
So, a month ago, i was in the enviable possition of being a student, and just selling my house that i have had for the past 5 years. Thinking what i could do with the hard earned money, i banked most of it, but decided to build a no limits machine for gaming, and uni (IT Student!) So here it is:

CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad QX6600 @3GHz

Motherboard: EVGA nForce 680i

RAM: Corsair DDR2 XMS2 Dominator PC2-9136C5 (4x 1Gb)

Graphics: EVGA 8800GTX 786Mb Superclocked

Sound: Onboard RealTek HD

Hard Drive: 2x WD 74Gb Raptor, 2x Seagate Barracuda 200Gb

Power Supply: OCZ 850W

Not all the specs, but as you can see, quite a machine, now to the performance:

Processor - 5.9
Memory - 5.7
Graphics - 5.9
Gaming Graphics - 5.9
Primary H.D. 5.9

Total 5.7.

So even getting a full 5.9 isn't that easy...


I wonder why your mem score is so. you have 4 gigs.. whats the mem timing? now thats kinda strange
March 2, 2007 2:02:26 PM

The performance index rating in Vista isn't for you to brag on how
powerful your machine is. Instead of upgrading blindly it's shows
you want exact component you need to upgrade so that
you can have the the best Vista experience and a bit
of a score boost.
March 2, 2007 2:06:08 PM

Quote:
So, a month ago, i was in the enviable possition of being a student, and just selling my house that i have had for the past 5 years. Thinking what i could do with the hard earned money, i banked most of it, but decided to build a no limits machine for gaming, and uni (IT Student!) So here it is:

CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad QX6600 @3GHz

Motherboard: EVGA nForce 680i

RAM: Corsair DDR2 XMS2 Dominator PC2-9136C5 (4x 1Gb)

Graphics: EVGA 8800GTX 786Mb Superclocked

Sound: Onboard RealTek HD

Hard Drive: 2x WD 74Gb Raptor, 2x Seagate Barracuda 200Gb

Power Supply: OCZ 850W

Not all the specs, but as you can see, quite a machine, now to the performance:

Processor - 5.9
Memory - 5.7
Graphics - 5.9
Gaming Graphics - 5.9
Primary H.D. 5.9

Total 5.7.

So even getting a full 5.9 isn't that easy...


I wonder why your mem score is so. you have 4 gigs.. whats the mem timing? now thats kinda strange

Vista's performance rating is mysterious, isn't it?
I've got 3GB (2X1GB and 2X512mb) and it
gave me a score of 5.3 (DDR 2 667MHz no fancy smancy timing crap,
nor heatsink, you know those vaule types.)
March 2, 2007 2:10:34 PM

Quote:
The performance index rating in Vista isn't for you to brag on how
powerful your machine is. Instead of upgrading blindly it's shows
you want exact component you need to upgrade so that
you can have the the best Vista experience and a bit
of a score boost.


thank you.. kind of. This is the point im trying to make and i think it does help.. but for me im using it for braging.. and to have a good pc
March 2, 2007 2:15:54 PM

vistas scorin system is on crack.

theres an article on tomshardware or slashdot recently; they had a quad core intel wit 2-4 gigs of ram and a 1950XT I believe and it didn't get 5.9.

so basically dun be expectin a 5.9 in eveythin because

a) scorin is skewed
b) you need crazy ass hardware to do it, doubt its even possible
March 2, 2007 2:18:16 PM

Quote:
vistas scorin system is on crack.

theres an article on tomshardware or slashdot recently; they had a quad core intel wit 2-4 gigs of ram and a 1950XT I believe and it didn't get 5.9.

so basically dun be expectin a 5.9 in eveythin because

a) scorin is skewed
b) you need crazy ass hardware to do it, doubt its even possible


yes, i believe the computer you saw was on http://www.twitchguru.com/2007/03/01/vista_offers_nothi...
i couldnt believe it either
March 2, 2007 2:26:17 PM

Quote:
b) you need crazy ass hardware to do it, doubt its even possible



...and therein lies the rub

M
March 2, 2007 2:26:56 PM

Quote:
well, i would assume the vga card will give me a 5.9. my 6800gt gets a 5.9 right now. the raptor drive i looked at was not faster then the sata 300 drives ive seen for hundreads less. They offer faster transfer speed, seek time and come in much larger sizes for a lot less. I may eventually do a raid setup but dont have the money to buy all the drives. right now i have a score of 4.5 with my current setup. i have 1 gig of pc3200, a 7200 rpm seagate sata drive, a p4 2.8 with ht a 6800gt and my score is good. I would think a computer practicly double mine ( the one i listed above) would have to get me a 5.9. Im not a (n00b) lol I've been doing this for 15 years.. I Just have this problem where if i see something like a low score it would drive me crazy. If im getting a low score its from a piece of hardware.. i want a better piece to fix the score.

note: the raptor drive i saw had 8 meg buffer, 10k rpm and half the transfer speed as a sata300. Are there better raptor drives?


I seriously hope you're not saying raptors are slower than standard SATA Drives?


Ok, well.. I dont have time to look it up but if you go to newegg and compare a sata-300 drive with a raptor the proff is in the pudding, faster transfer, faster seek, better handling of temp, and its quiter at a better price. Please if im wrong let me know and tell me what drive is faster.. i know the raptor is 10k rpm.. but that doesnt matter if the transfer speed is slow.. its like... hurry up and wait.

What?

Interface speed and transfer speed are two different things..
Raptors are much faster at seeking and transfers. I personally wouldn't but them, but they are for sure faster.

Please backup your statements!!

sata - 300 specs on this drive:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...



Capacity (GB) Learn More 320
Interface Serial ATA-300 Spindle Speed (RPM) 7200
Buffer Memory 16MB
Average Latency (msec) 4.16
Maximum External Transfer Rate (Mbits/sec) 300
Data Transfer Rate on Serial ATA Up to 3000 Mb/sec
Logical Cylinders/Heads/Sectors per Track 16,383/16/63
Bytes Per Sector 512
Nonrecoverable Read Errors per Bits Read 1 in 10E14
Temperature, Operating (°C) 0 to 60
Temperature, Nonoperating (°C) -40 to 70
Shock, Operating: 2 msec (Gs) 68
Shock, Nonoperating: 2 msec (Gs) 300
Type OEM
Dimensions 1.028" x 5.787" x 4.0"


Raptor drive: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...

Capacity (GB) Learn More 150
Interface Serial ATA-150
Spindle Speed (RPM) 10K
Buffer Memory 16MB
Average Seek (msec) Learn More <4.5
Track-to-Track Seek Time (typical read, ms) 0.4
Full Stroke Seek Time (normal seek) 10.2
Data Transfer Rate on Serial ATA Up to 1500 Mb/sec
Temperature, Operating (°C) 5 to 55
Temperature, Nonoperating (°C) -40 to 65
Shock, Operating: 2 msec (Gs) 65
Shock, Nonoperating: 2 msec (Gs) 250
Type OEM


you asked me to back it up
March 2, 2007 2:42:03 PM

Striker Extreme 680i
E6700 @stock
2x1GB Corsair XMS2 6400C4
8800GTX
Raptor 150 GB + WD 500 YS HDs
Onboard Sound

I score 5.9 in everything except CPU and memory ratings, which both score 5.5 instead.

You will either a monster C2D CPU or to overclock your E6600 to score a 5.9 (if it is even possible).

As for RAM... My guess is that you need both more than 2 GB of ram and you need to have it clocked quite a bit higher than 800 MHz to score a 5.9. Once again... if it is even possible right now.

-dolynick
March 2, 2007 2:43:55 PM

My system is identical to that. I score 5.9 on everything except the memory which is 5.7. I have the CPU over clocked to 3.0 GHz (9x333) the memory is at 667 MHz and timings are 4-4-4-12. This machine blows every game I throw at it out of the water along with all the engineering and modeling software I run.
March 2, 2007 2:55:16 PM

I got a 5.8 b/c of cpu- guess u need an OC quad

e6700 oc to 3.4-5.8
4x1gb corsair 6400c4-5.9
8800gtx-5.9
x-fi fatal1ty
1 raptor 150-5.9

Vista64-and glad I took the leap for 64
March 2, 2007 2:57:37 PM

Of course you don't need DX10 to run Vista.

However, there are many graphical interface options that are not available w/o DX10.

Hence the whole experience thing.

There is no way a 6800 video card should give you a perfect 5.9

Speed is totally irrelvent.
It's like saying your new car has a 800Hp engine but has no wheels.

From MS point of view, DX10 was one of the important selling points about Vista. I don't give a hoot how fast your card is if it cant take advantage of the supposed best features of Vista.
March 2, 2007 3:09:04 PM

Quote:

sata - 300 specs on this drive:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...



Capacity (GB) Learn More 320
Interface Serial ATA-300 Spindle Speed (RPM) 7200
Buffer Memory 16MB
Average Latency (msec) 4.16
Maximum External Transfer Rate (Mbits/sec) 300
Data Transfer Rate on Serial ATA Up to 3000 Mb/sec
Logical Cylinders/Heads/Sectors per Track 16,383/16/63
Bytes Per Sector 512
Nonrecoverable Read Errors per Bits Read 1 in 10E14
Temperature, Operating (°C) 0 to 60
Temperature, Nonoperating (°C) -40 to 70
Shock, Operating: 2 msec (Gs) 68
Shock, Nonoperating: 2 msec (Gs) 300
Type OEM
Dimensions 1.028" x 5.787" x 4.0"


Raptor drive: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...

Capacity (GB) Learn More 150
Interface Serial ATA-150
Spindle Speed (RPM) 10K
Buffer Memory 16MB
Average Seek (msec) Learn More <4.5
Track-to-Track Seek Time (typical read, ms) 0.4
Full Stroke Seek Time (normal seek) 10.2
Data Transfer Rate on Serial ATA Up to 1500 Mb/sec
Temperature, Operating (°C) 5 to 55
Temperature, Nonoperating (°C) -40 to 65
Shock, Operating: 2 msec (Gs) 65
Shock, Nonoperating: 2 msec (Gs) 250
Type OEM


you asked me to back it up


They are lieing. Notice the different wording.

Average Latency vs Average Seek.

Track-to-Track Seek Time...isn't even measured on the seagate drive.

The seek times for normal drives is around the 9ms area.
March 2, 2007 3:12:20 PM

Quote:


sata - 300 specs on this drive:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...



Capacity (GB) Learn More 320
Interface Serial ATA-300 Spindle Speed (RPM) 7200
Buffer Memory 16MB
Average Latency (msec) 4.16
Maximum External Transfer Rate (Mbits/sec) 300
Data Transfer Rate on Serial ATA Up to 3000 Mb/sec
Logical Cylinders/Heads/Sectors per Track 16,383/16/63
Bytes Per Sector 512
Nonrecoverable Read Errors per Bits Read 1 in 10E14
Temperature, Operating (°C) 0 to 60
Temperature, Nonoperating (°C) -40 to 70
Shock, Operating: 2 msec (Gs) 68
Shock, Nonoperating: 2 msec (Gs) 300
Type OEM
Dimensions 1.028" x 5.787" x 4.0"


Raptor drive: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...

Capacity (GB) Learn More 150
Interface Serial ATA-150
Spindle Speed (RPM) 10K
Buffer Memory 16MB
Average Seek (msec) Learn More <4.5
Track-to-Track Seek Time (typical read, ms) 0.4
Full Stroke Seek Time (normal seek) 10.2
Data Transfer Rate on Serial ATA Up to 1500 Mb/sec
Temperature, Operating (°C) 5 to 55
Temperature, Nonoperating (°C) -40 to 65
Shock, Operating: 2 msec (Gs) 65
Shock, Nonoperating: 2 msec (Gs) 250
Type OEM


you asked me to back it up


the problem with those spec comparisons, is they dont provide enough information to actually be able to even compare the drives on a performance bases, and some specs are even missing between spec comparisons too, so you really cant compare them based on that... a simpler, and more accurate comparison, is to say one drive is larger, less expensive, and slower (the 320GB seagate)... and another drive is smaller, more expensive, and faster (the 150GB ADFD raptor)

the raptor 150 that you linked to is also not the fastest raptor either way (that would be either the 74GB ADFD, or the 36GB ADFD, which is even faster i believe, each hdd contains 1*74GB platter), but the 150GB does have the largest combined total capacity (2*74GB platters), and consequently is the most expensive too

the seagate also has access times of around ~16ms, while the raptor has access times of about ~8ms... the interface i believe is what actually slows the access times down above their rated spec... the raptors rated access time is 4.6ms... and the seagates rated access time is about 8.9ms, i believe
March 2, 2007 3:30:13 PM

Quote:


sata - 300 specs on this drive:
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...



Capacity (GB) Learn More 320
Interface Serial ATA-300 Spindle Speed (RPM) 7200
Buffer Memory 16MB
Average Latency (msec) 4.16
Maximum External Transfer Rate (Mbits/sec) 300
Data Transfer Rate on Serial ATA Up to 3000 Mb/sec
Logical Cylinders/Heads/Sectors per Track 16,383/16/63
Bytes Per Sector 512
Nonrecoverable Read Errors per Bits Read 1 in 10E14
Temperature, Operating (°C) 0 to 60
Temperature, Nonoperating (°C) -40 to 70
Shock, Operating: 2 msec (Gs) 68
Shock, Nonoperating: 2 msec (Gs) 300
Type OEM
Dimensions 1.028" x 5.787" x 4.0"


Raptor drive: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/ite...

Capacity (GB) Learn More 150
Interface Serial ATA-150
Spindle Speed (RPM) 10K
Buffer Memory 16MB
Average Seek (msec) Learn More <4.5
Track-to-Track Seek Time (typical read, ms) 0.4
Full Stroke Seek Time (normal seek) 10.2
Data Transfer Rate on Serial ATA Up to 1500 Mb/sec
Temperature, Operating (°C) 5 to 55
Temperature, Nonoperating (°C) -40 to 65
Shock, Operating: 2 msec (Gs) 65
Shock, Nonoperating: 2 msec (Gs) 250
Type OEM


you asked me to back it up


the problem with those spec comparisons, is they dont provide enough information to actually be able to even compare the drives on a performance bases, and some specs are even missing between spec comparisons too, so you really cant compare them based on that... a simpler, and more accurate comparison, is to say one drive is larger, less expensive, and slower (the 320GB seagate)... and another drive is smaller, more expensive, and faster (the 150GB ADFD raptor)

the raptor 150 that you linked to is also not the fastest raptor either way (that would be either the 74GB ADFD, or the 36GB ADFD, which is even faster i believe, each hdd contains 1*74GB platter), but the 150GB does have the largest combined total capacity (2*74GB platters), and consequently is the most expensive too

the seagate also has access times of around 14-16ms, while the raptor has access times of about 7-8ms... the interface i believe is what actually slows the access times down above their rated spec... the raptors rated access time is 4.6ms... and the seagates rated access time is about 8-9ms

Thanks for clarifing. I didnt do alot of research I just noticed that on the site and was wondering if it was too good to be true. I think im going to get the seagate based on price alone. I'm pretty sure that vista will give it a 5.9 too. Thanks for letting me know
March 2, 2007 3:30:29 PM

Quote:
So, a month ago, i was in the enviable possition of being a student, and just selling my house that i have had for the past 5 years. Thinking what i could do with the hard earned money, i banked most of it, but decided to build a no limits machine for gaming, and uni (IT Student!) So here it is:

CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad QX6600 @3GHz

Motherboard: EVGA nForce 680i

RAM: Corsair DDR2 XMS2 Dominator PC2-9136C5 (4x 1Gb)

Graphics: EVGA 8800GTX 786Mb Superclocked

Sound: Onboard RealTek HD

Hard Drive: 2x WD 74Gb Raptor, 2x Seagate Barracuda 200Gb

Power Supply: OCZ 850W

Not all the specs, but as you can see, quite a machine, now to the performance:

Processor - 5.9
Memory - 5.7
Graphics - 5.9
Gaming Graphics - 5.9
Primary H.D. 5.9

Total 5.7.

So even getting a full 5.9 isn't that easy...


:p  The only part where your machine did NOT get a perfect score is memory, and in fact you have 4 GB of high-quality RAM and the O/S isn't even capable of using it all? I think Microsoft has some serious bugs in this test....
March 2, 2007 3:32:54 PM

the seagate 320GB is definetly a much better price/performance/capacity hdd than any raptor is, its definetly a good choice
March 2, 2007 3:35:32 PM

Quote:
Of course you don't need DX10 to run Vista.

However, there are many graphical interface options that are not available w/o DX10.

Hence the whole experience thing.

There is no way a 6800 video card should give you a perfect 5.9

Speed is totally irrelvent.
It's like saying your new car has a 800Hp engine but has no wheels.

From MS point of view, DX10 was one of the important selling points about Vista. I don't give a hoot how fast your card is if it cant take advantage of the supposed best features of Vista.


What options? where are they and what are they? I didnt know that. Can you backup your claim
March 2, 2007 3:54:51 PM

From what I understand, there are two ways to have a wonderful Microsoft Windows Vista experience. They are:

1. Stick with XP
2. Don't use Vista

I mean, really, MS had been working on this OS for how many years and this is the best it could do? XP isn't so bad that it needed a replacement, and MS isn't in such dire financial straights that it needed a new OS to make more $$.
March 2, 2007 4:06:41 PM

Vista's "graphical options" do NOT require a DX10 card. Microsoft said early on that Vista will just require a card a little more powerful than your typical onboard graphics. Vista does not use DX10 for its "graphical options". DX10 is required by a DX10 game, any separate graphics card can run Vista and all of its "graphical options", it sure as hell doesn't require a DX10 card.
March 2, 2007 4:17:48 PM

Quote:
Vista's "graphical options" do NOT require a DX10 card. Microsoft said early on that Vista will just require a card a little more powerful than your typical onboard graphics. Vista does not use DX10 for its "graphical options". DX10 is required by a DX10 game, any separate graphics card can run Vista and all of its "graphical options", it sure as hell doesn't require a DX10 card.


Thats the understanding that I had as well. I am runing full aereo with dreamscenes pefectly
March 2, 2007 4:22:23 PM

Quote:
From what I understand, there are two ways to have a wonderful Microsoft Windows Vista experience. They are:

1. Stick with XP
2. Don't use Vista

I mean, really, MS had been working on this OS for how many years and this is the best it could do? XP isn't so bad that it needed a replacement, and MS isn't in such dire financial straights that it needed a new OS to make more $$.


yes XP is more stable, Vista is a very good OS to use. I run it now with no problems. For the everyday user they may want to wait but if your at all a technical person you have had this installed since rc1 or earlier. This is the longest time m$ has worked on a OS and it shows. Compared to xp wich hardly ran at rc1 vista is leeps and bounds out classing it in its infancy.
March 2, 2007 5:08:13 PM

Quote:
...But I do actually like this new rating system. It provides every day users a standard and will help all of us pc repair people to explain why there computer is horrible...


I hear ya' as it will be easier to tell non-tech types what parts they need to run Vista better, nothing more. But due a combo of ignorance and marketing, non-tech types will be tricked into buying the bull$hit that it's a rating system of how well their system will run, period.

You may like it, but I think the rating system is an afront to the intelligence of the average computer user and an insult to the enthusiast builder.
March 2, 2007 5:50:09 PM

i can only speak for graphics and memory as they're the only thing that scored over 5.5 for me

DDR400 @ 2gig's - same amount anything higher will yield a atleast a 5.6+
X1900 w/ 256mb/256bit interface - anything equal or better will give you a 6.0 or better

rest of my system scored 3's with HDDs getting 2's but i was just using spare 40gb and 80gb drives so i didn't ruin my XP install
March 2, 2007 9:33:05 PM

I run Vista Home Prem with this setup (see sig) my 'Base Score' is 5.5 so in short you'll smash it with that setup!

Dont believe the Hype! Vista runs great.

Stats

Processor : Calculations per second : 5.5
Memory : Memory operations per second : 5.6
Graphics : Desktop performance for windows aero : 5.9
Gaming Graphics : 3D business and gaming graphics performance : 5.8
Primary Hard disk : Data transfer rate : 5.7


5.5 Base score determined by lowest score.

There you have it.
March 2, 2007 11:27:05 PM

Quote:
Quote:
So, a month ago, i was in the enviable possition of being a student, and just selling my house that i have had for the past 5 years. Thinking what i could do with the hard earned money, i banked most of it, but decided to build a no limits machine for gaming, and uni (IT Student!) So here it is:

CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad QX6600 @3GHz

Motherboard: EVGA nForce 680i

RAM: Corsair DDR2 XMS2 Dominator PC2-9136C5 (4x 1Gb)

Graphics: EVGA 8800GTX 786Mb Superclocked

Sound: Onboard RealTek HD

Hard Drive: 2x WD 74Gb Raptor, 2x Seagate Barracuda 200Gb

Power Supply: OCZ 850W

Not all the specs, but as you can see, quite a machine, now to the performance:

Processor - 5.9
Memory - 5.7
Graphics - 5.9
Gaming Graphics - 5.9
Primary H.D. 5.9

Total 5.7.

So even getting a full 5.9 isn't that easy...


:p  The only part where your machine did NOT get a perfect score is memory, and in fact you have 4 GB of high-quality RAM and the O/S isn't even capable of using it all? I think Microsoft has some serious bugs in this test....[/quote

My timings for this memory are 4-4-4-12 and even then they don't get 5.9.

With regard to Vista not recognising 4 gigs of memory, from what i have read recently, the 32bit OS can only recognise a maximum of 4 gigs on any one machine, this includes Vram, L1, L2 cache and all. The 64 bit os can recognise up to 128Gb of ram. Or so i think.

Please feel free for anyone to correct me...
March 3, 2007 2:06:50 AM

I would rate my level of technical expertise as pretty high, though nothing exceptional, and I have been beta testing several MS products over the past couple of years.

I remember cursing XP a few times when it first came out, and was a little red-faced when software for certain hardware I had (like my cameras), no longer worked, forcing me to use MS's built-in (and limited) solutions. However, the level of frustration working with Vista cannot be put into words. And from what I am hearing, I am not the only one who is not impressed with it.

True, given time, this OS might shine, but methinks this is going to be a lot like ME in that it will quickly be replaced with something better.

I just don't see anything inherently better in Vista than in XP. The UAC is annoying, and if you're a person with limited knowledge, you might think everything that is trying to install itself is bad. Those with a higher-level of knowledge will just turn it off.

Personally, after attending about a zillion (just an exaggeration- I've only been to a few billion) MS events, it seems to me that Vista is more for developers and less for the typical end-user. Just my three cents.
March 3, 2007 9:05:31 AM

5.4 Total
Determined by lowest subscore

Processor Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6700 @ 2.66GHz 5.5
Memory (RAM) 1.98 GB 5.5
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GT/GTO 5.9
Gaming graphics 751 MB Total available graphics memory 5.9
Primary hard disk 55GB Free (149GB Total) 5.4
Windows Vista (TM) Home Premium

I'm enjoying it greatly. I have a 2GB stick of USB2.0 highspeed flash that I use for readyboost that seems to help alot.
March 3, 2007 9:43:33 AM

My guess is that Vista will be a flop. Not that it isn't "good", but it's not really any better than XP other an looks. Look at the general population and then think about all the people that don't meet Vista's requirements, or don't even know it's out, or don't care, or are M$ resistant. I know a few of us do meet the requirements, care, have the $ to upgrade, and love M$. As far as mainstream goes, Vista is way into the outfield.

The only reason I don't get Vista is because of all the bugs, and it doesn't run most of my programs/games. I'm guessing by this time next year M$ will fix it up or we'll all give up.
a b B Homebuilt system
March 3, 2007 2:41:24 PM

I'm running 2 GB DDR2-667 memory (1:1 w/333MHz FSB) with 4-4-4-12 timings and I get a memory score of 5.9. I don't understand why so many people here with DDR2-800 and the like are getting lower scores. :?
March 4, 2007 4:04:46 AM

That's pretty good.

I don't know why y'all are worried about getting a max score on the Vista thing. I have decided to go the opposite route and get the lowest score one can acheive. That's right, I have a machine that scored "1" on the Vista tests!

Word!
!